Prevailing whims can blow down monetary policy.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
There's been a lot of talk from conservatives about auditing the Federal Reserve, and monitoring more closely the central bank's activities in attempting to stabilize the economy.
"Audit the Fed!" is the chant. The reality is that the central bank's financial activities are already audited by several independent as well as government agencies, and the new campaign is a political attempt by Congress to control the Fed's policy activities.
In effect, such a political audit would stop the Fed from helping in a timely fashion those who need help, not only curtailing critical Fed movements to control inflation and ease unemployment, but could well put the central bank out of business entirely.
Without a central bank, financial institutions would fail, there would be no agency to bail them out, unemployment would soar, inflation would be out of control, and the entire economy would crash, much as it did repeatedly in the 19th Century. And yes, there was the Great Depression in the 20th Century, and the Great Recession more recently, and the central bank could have done a better job in the 1930s. At the time, however, it was constrained by prevailing political beliefs that in the long run, the business climate would improve and the economy would heal itself. It took strong government intervention to ease the burdens and promote recovery.
(There are, of course, deposit insurance agencies that help protect bank customers, but a massive collapse of the system would quickly drain those agencies, worsening the overall crisis.)
But to return to "those golden days of yesteryear," which would include a return to the hard money years of the gold standard -- also advocated by some conservatives -- only means widespread economic disaster for the many as the micro-few take advantage of the disadvantaged.
The hue and cry for more control over the Federal Reserve Board goes back months, prompting the central bank to emphasize that it is indeed accountable, and is regularly audited by several independent as well as government agencies.
For example, the Fed reports to Congress twice a year on its plans for monetary policy, its chair -- currently Janet Yellen -- testifies regularly before congressional committees, its Federal Open Market Committee publicizes its views and actions regarding monetary policy and interest rate decisions regularly, there is an annual report, and the financial statements of the central bank as well as the twelve regional banks are audited annually by an independent outside auditor. Then there is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector General that audit the Fed's activities. And every week, the Fed publishes a financial balance sheet.
Despite all that, conservatives are demanding still closer monitoring and control of the Fed's activities.
In a speech as far back as last February, Jerome Powell, a member of the Fed's Board of Governors, noted three major parts to the effort to "subject monetary policy to undue political pressure." One, under what Powell called a "misleading name," the "Audit the Fed" plan would bring the central bank's monetary decisions to "unlimited congressional policy audits (not to be confused with financial audits, which are already conducted regularly.)"
The second, Powell noted, would force the Fed to follow a specific path when making monetary decisions, and face "immediate" congressional hearings and investigations if it should ever deviate from that path.
Thirdly, Fed monitors want new limits on how and whether it acts during a financial crisis.
All of which are based on beliefs that the Fed is secretive and unaccountable, and that no one is watching what they do.
There is, and should be, some secrecy about what the central bank plans to do and when it plans to intervene in the credit market and in the money supply. Otherwise, some players in the financial markets would have an unfair advantage.
But the Federal Reserve is already accountable to Congress. It reports regularly on its status and decisions, and deservedly has flexibility in how it operates to stabilize inflation and encourage employment and the economy in general.
To demand more congressional oversight is a political attempt to control the central bank and limit its ability to act. This would only lead to the chaos so common in the 19th Century, when banks failed regularly and shut down, with no one to rescue them and restore customer deposits.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Social Economics
It ain't what you got, it's the way how'd you use it
Economics is, by its nature, a social science, and any attempt to deal with human behavior by transmuting it into abstract mathematical formulas can only yield a few general patterns of behavior, not immutable laws.
For example, consider the most basic principle of Economics 101, the Law of Supply and Demand. While it does describe the general pattern of behavior as one factor responds to the other, it also relies on that is known as the ceteris paribus assumption -- "other things equal." In the real world, however, other things seldom if ever remain equal for long. Things change. People change. How, how much, whether and why they change can drive a statistician bonkers. Nonetheless, statistics can illustrate a pattern, and on the assumption that the pattern will hold, predictions can be made. Can you say heroic assumption?
Call it the if-then hypothesis: Assuming that if this pattern holds and nothing changes, then such-and-so will result. But this works only so long as the "other things" remain equal and do not change.
Another assumption in formulating and analyzing economic patterns is that people make rational choices. But are people rational? Do all people always behave rationally? Some may be rational some of the time, and there may be enough rationality often enough so that patterns can be detected. But even that measure of rationality changes. That's why economics is a social science.
There was a time when Economics courses were taken out of the Social Studies departments at many colleges and transferred to the School of Business, and treated with mathematical rigor. The study was, in effect, dehumanized, and treated with the same attitudes common to marketing and advertising.
It didn't work out well, and the trend is back toward treating economics as the study of what people do with what's available to them. And that is a social issue, not scientific.
Economics is, by its nature, a social science, and any attempt to deal with human behavior by transmuting it into abstract mathematical formulas can only yield a few general patterns of behavior, not immutable laws.
For example, consider the most basic principle of Economics 101, the Law of Supply and Demand. While it does describe the general pattern of behavior as one factor responds to the other, it also relies on that is known as the ceteris paribus assumption -- "other things equal." In the real world, however, other things seldom if ever remain equal for long. Things change. People change. How, how much, whether and why they change can drive a statistician bonkers. Nonetheless, statistics can illustrate a pattern, and on the assumption that the pattern will hold, predictions can be made. Can you say heroic assumption?
Call it the if-then hypothesis: Assuming that if this pattern holds and nothing changes, then such-and-so will result. But this works only so long as the "other things" remain equal and do not change.
Another assumption in formulating and analyzing economic patterns is that people make rational choices. But are people rational? Do all people always behave rationally? Some may be rational some of the time, and there may be enough rationality often enough so that patterns can be detected. But even that measure of rationality changes. That's why economics is a social science.
There was a time when Economics courses were taken out of the Social Studies departments at many colleges and transferred to the School of Business, and treated with mathematical rigor. The study was, in effect, dehumanized, and treated with the same attitudes common to marketing and advertising.
It didn't work out well, and the trend is back toward treating economics as the study of what people do with what's available to them. And that is a social issue, not scientific.
Pause and Refresh
Follow the bouncing GDP
Economic growth in America paused in the third quarter, growing by 1.5 percent, compared to 3.9 percent in the second quarter and a bare 0.6 percent in the first three months of this year.
That's very likely why the Federal Reserve Board held off, once again, on its long-awaited plan to boost interest rates as the economic recovery gains strength. Clearly, it's not strong enough yet to stand on its own, especially as major economies in other nations remain weak or show signs of stumbling.
In its announcement yesterday, the Fed reaffirmed its plan to hold the federal funds interest rate at near zero, until more progress is made toward full employment and a reasonable rate of inflation -- in the Fed's mind, that means 2 percent inflation and less than 5 percent unemployment.
Today, that decision was supported by the news from the Department of Commerce that the nation's output of goods and services -- GDP -- slid to a 1.5 percent growth rate, in the July-September period, from more than twice that rate in the earlier three-month time frame.
The Fed's Open Market Committee noted that it would revisit the question at its next meeting, in mid-December, and hinted that it just might tighten the interest rate a very light touch then. Then again, they might not. Don't expect them to put the screws on borrowing just as the holiday season is at its height.
Economic growth in America paused in the third quarter, growing by 1.5 percent, compared to 3.9 percent in the second quarter and a bare 0.6 percent in the first three months of this year.
That's very likely why the Federal Reserve Board held off, once again, on its long-awaited plan to boost interest rates as the economic recovery gains strength. Clearly, it's not strong enough yet to stand on its own, especially as major economies in other nations remain weak or show signs of stumbling.
In its announcement yesterday, the Fed reaffirmed its plan to hold the federal funds interest rate at near zero, until more progress is made toward full employment and a reasonable rate of inflation -- in the Fed's mind, that means 2 percent inflation and less than 5 percent unemployment.
Today, that decision was supported by the news from the Department of Commerce that the nation's output of goods and services -- GDP -- slid to a 1.5 percent growth rate, in the July-September period, from more than twice that rate in the earlier three-month time frame.
The Fed's Open Market Committee noted that it would revisit the question at its next meeting, in mid-December, and hinted that it just might tighten the interest rate a very light touch then. Then again, they might not. Don't expect them to put the screws on borrowing just as the holiday season is at its height.
Taking Debate
Ignore the premise of the question.
"Mean" and "nasty" were some of the terms used by GOP debaters to describe some of the questions put to them Wednesday by the journalist-moderators.
That is, when the contestants didn't ignore the question entirely and speechified on something else. The moderators lost control of the proceedings in the first five minutes of the two-hour televised session on CNBC.
From there on, the so-called debate was more a matter of name-calling, bragging, half-answers and non-answers as the presidential candidates held to their individual agendas and spoke at length on their prepared topics, regardless of the questions posed. And when their allotted time was up, they simply kept talking. At one point, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie criticized a moderator for interrupting when his time was up. "Even in New Jersey, that's called rude," Christie said.
For the next debate, the moderator should wield a gavel.
Continuing to talk past the time limit and ignoring the question is not new among politicians. Typically, if they don't like the question or don't know the answer, they prattle on about something else, which may or may not be relevant to the issue. In addition, they attack the journalist as being "unfair," or mean and nasty for daring to ask tough questions.
But that's what journalists do. Moreover, journalists in general as well as the moderator and questioners at the debate are trained to not respond to personal attacks. So while vilification by the candidate may rouse support among rabid followers, it does not and should not incite anger among the journalists, much less counter-attack. They have tougher hides than that. If they don't, they should find another line of work.
Meanwhile, the tough questions remain, and should be answered. As noted by this editor more than 20 years ago, good journalists are neither advocates nor adversaries. We ask the tough questions because they need to be asked. Attacking the messenger because you don't like the news never changes the news itself.
In short, candidates on the debate stage should answer the question, because attacking a news reporter is never a good idea. After all, the pen is still mightier than the sword.
"Mean" and "nasty" were some of the terms used by GOP debaters to describe some of the questions put to them Wednesday by the journalist-moderators.
That is, when the contestants didn't ignore the question entirely and speechified on something else. The moderators lost control of the proceedings in the first five minutes of the two-hour televised session on CNBC.
From there on, the so-called debate was more a matter of name-calling, bragging, half-answers and non-answers as the presidential candidates held to their individual agendas and spoke at length on their prepared topics, regardless of the questions posed. And when their allotted time was up, they simply kept talking. At one point, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie criticized a moderator for interrupting when his time was up. "Even in New Jersey, that's called rude," Christie said.
For the next debate, the moderator should wield a gavel.
Continuing to talk past the time limit and ignoring the question is not new among politicians. Typically, if they don't like the question or don't know the answer, they prattle on about something else, which may or may not be relevant to the issue. In addition, they attack the journalist as being "unfair," or mean and nasty for daring to ask tough questions.
But that's what journalists do. Moreover, journalists in general as well as the moderator and questioners at the debate are trained to not respond to personal attacks. So while vilification by the candidate may rouse support among rabid followers, it does not and should not incite anger among the journalists, much less counter-attack. They have tougher hides than that. If they don't, they should find another line of work.
Meanwhile, the tough questions remain, and should be answered. As noted by this editor more than 20 years ago, good journalists are neither advocates nor adversaries. We ask the tough questions because they need to be asked. Attacking the messenger because you don't like the news never changes the news itself.
In short, candidates on the debate stage should answer the question, because attacking a news reporter is never a good idea. After all, the pen is still mightier than the sword.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
News as a Business
"Make the story sizzle," said the editor.
"But what about the steak?" asked the reporter.
Newspapers don't mold public opinion so much as they reflect it. For that reason, publishers are careful not to antagonize readers too much lest they lose subscribers and, in turn, lose advertising revenue. The same holds true for broadcast media, since both are, in essence, businesses, and their function is to make a profit for the owners.
There is, of course, a wall between the newsroom and the advertising and circulation departments and little communication between reporters and sales agents. Nevertheless, the top editor does talk to the publisher, and both tend to be careful about dissing the advertisers. The best newspapers are big enough to withstand pressure from advertisers, but that pressure sometimes happens. But a newspaper fails in its mission if it caves in to advertiser demands and modifies its news coverage to mollify complainers. However, in doing so, the publication may lose the confidence of its readers, who then find their information elsewhere and the newspaper goes out of business. It is, after all, a profit-making enterprise.
So there is sometimes a fine line to walk, as publishers try to satisfy advertisers and readers at the same time. One way to do that is to aim news coverage at a group of readers sympathetic to certain political beliefs that match those of advertisers. In turn, advertisers tune their pitches to harmonize with those beliefs.
All of which raises this question: Are newspapers and broadcast media truly independent, or are they bound to one or another set of beliefs?
The answer is yes, both of the above.
A quality news operation can be very expensive, and its primary source of revenue is advertising. In television, it's the only source of revenue. In daily newspapers, there is a cover price, but that barely pays for the cost of the paper it's printed on.
To attract readers or viewers -- and simultaneously advertisers -- a news operation typically focuses on the "hot story." For some, this descends into sensationalism as reporters, writers and news anchors work to make the story sizzle.
As a result, this competition for "hot stories" brings less nutritional information to the public.
Some have suggested that one answer would be a state-supported news media, removing the profit-maximizing hunger. The danger there, however, is that the government would thus control the flow of information. In other words, propaganda.
But the culture within a nation must be considered. Britain has the BBC, and America has radio and TV operations that are largely listener-supported. The BBC is supported by license fees collected by the government, but the government generally has little influence on content or coverage. Perhaps that may be because it has not tried. That, however, is also a cultural issue.
Information is imperative to a savvy electorate. But that doesn't mean the presentation is neutral. For every Fox News operation, which leans strongly to the right, there is an MSNBC. which leans heavily to the left. And CNN tries to stay to the middle.
In effect, this gives American viewers a choice of where they get their news and opinions. Coupled with the wide range of newspapers and magazines, the availability of information can satisfy a news-hungry public.
That is, of course, assuming that the consumers of the product -- readers and viewers -- line up at the smorgasbord and partake of the information offerings.
However, that could also be a heroic assumption, since many would rather watch The Muppet Show.
"But what about the steak?" asked the reporter.
Newspapers don't mold public opinion so much as they reflect it. For that reason, publishers are careful not to antagonize readers too much lest they lose subscribers and, in turn, lose advertising revenue. The same holds true for broadcast media, since both are, in essence, businesses, and their function is to make a profit for the owners.
There is, of course, a wall between the newsroom and the advertising and circulation departments and little communication between reporters and sales agents. Nevertheless, the top editor does talk to the publisher, and both tend to be careful about dissing the advertisers. The best newspapers are big enough to withstand pressure from advertisers, but that pressure sometimes happens. But a newspaper fails in its mission if it caves in to advertiser demands and modifies its news coverage to mollify complainers. However, in doing so, the publication may lose the confidence of its readers, who then find their information elsewhere and the newspaper goes out of business. It is, after all, a profit-making enterprise.
So there is sometimes a fine line to walk, as publishers try to satisfy advertisers and readers at the same time. One way to do that is to aim news coverage at a group of readers sympathetic to certain political beliefs that match those of advertisers. In turn, advertisers tune their pitches to harmonize with those beliefs.
All of which raises this question: Are newspapers and broadcast media truly independent, or are they bound to one or another set of beliefs?
The answer is yes, both of the above.
A quality news operation can be very expensive, and its primary source of revenue is advertising. In television, it's the only source of revenue. In daily newspapers, there is a cover price, but that barely pays for the cost of the paper it's printed on.
To attract readers or viewers -- and simultaneously advertisers -- a news operation typically focuses on the "hot story." For some, this descends into sensationalism as reporters, writers and news anchors work to make the story sizzle.
As a result, this competition for "hot stories" brings less nutritional information to the public.
Some have suggested that one answer would be a state-supported news media, removing the profit-maximizing hunger. The danger there, however, is that the government would thus control the flow of information. In other words, propaganda.
But the culture within a nation must be considered. Britain has the BBC, and America has radio and TV operations that are largely listener-supported. The BBC is supported by license fees collected by the government, but the government generally has little influence on content or coverage. Perhaps that may be because it has not tried. That, however, is also a cultural issue.
Information is imperative to a savvy electorate. But that doesn't mean the presentation is neutral. For every Fox News operation, which leans strongly to the right, there is an MSNBC. which leans heavily to the left. And CNN tries to stay to the middle.
In effect, this gives American viewers a choice of where they get their news and opinions. Coupled with the wide range of newspapers and magazines, the availability of information can satisfy a news-hungry public.
That is, of course, assuming that the consumers of the product -- readers and viewers -- line up at the smorgasbord and partake of the information offerings.
However, that could also be a heroic assumption, since many would rather watch The Muppet Show.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Media Control
"That way madness lies. Let me shun that." -- Shakespeare
Public figures criticize media coverage at their own risk, especially those who depend on media coverage to carry their message to the general public.
Item: When a political candidate demands that TV cameras scan the crowd, in order to show his popularity, news directors can and do cut away from the speechifying and move to other news, as the anchor promises to monitor the speech and report later what is said.
Result: The candidate is no longer in control.
Item: When a major poll shows the candidate losing ground and moving to second place, and the candidate complains that one poll sponsor, Bloomberg News, "hates me," and the other poll sponsor, the Des Moines Register, "is a crummy, second rate newspaper," he may score points with his avid supporters, but he runs the risk of antagonizing editors.
Yet this was precisely the tactic used by Donald J. Trump over the weekend when news media did not show things that he liked, or showed things that he did not like. In Florida, he demanded that the TV cameras show the size of the audience. And he attacked a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper as being "crummy, second rate."
Result: The target newspaper will continue to cover the story, but instead of getting 20 inches of copy on Page One, it may be relegated to six inches on Page 17.
That way madness lies.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Polls are often sponsored and paid for by news media, but the surveys are conducted by independent, professional agencies, experienced at poll-taking. To imply that the results are deliberately rewritten and skewed against a particular candidate shows many things. Try pettiness, insecurity, arrogance, and an attempt to control a constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of the Press.
When polls are conducted by partisan organizations, they inevitably show results beneficial to the favored candidate. If the poll results do not show the desired result, the surveys are buried, and not released to the public and the news media.
Reporters and editors cherish their independence, and strive to be neutral in their coverage. Granted, some who claim the mantle of journalist are not neutral in their coverage, but they are more properly described as columnists and commentators. They too are guaranteed freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
Note to candidates: Complaining about news coverage and antagonizing reporters is dangerous. And even more dangerous to a democracy is an attempt to silence critics by controlling the news media. It is a foolish path to take.
Public figures criticize media coverage at their own risk, especially those who depend on media coverage to carry their message to the general public.
Item: When a political candidate demands that TV cameras scan the crowd, in order to show his popularity, news directors can and do cut away from the speechifying and move to other news, as the anchor promises to monitor the speech and report later what is said.
Result: The candidate is no longer in control.
Item: When a major poll shows the candidate losing ground and moving to second place, and the candidate complains that one poll sponsor, Bloomberg News, "hates me," and the other poll sponsor, the Des Moines Register, "is a crummy, second rate newspaper," he may score points with his avid supporters, but he runs the risk of antagonizing editors.
Yet this was precisely the tactic used by Donald J. Trump over the weekend when news media did not show things that he liked, or showed things that he did not like. In Florida, he demanded that the TV cameras show the size of the audience. And he attacked a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper as being "crummy, second rate."
Result: The target newspaper will continue to cover the story, but instead of getting 20 inches of copy on Page One, it may be relegated to six inches on Page 17.
That way madness lies.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Polls are often sponsored and paid for by news media, but the surveys are conducted by independent, professional agencies, experienced at poll-taking. To imply that the results are deliberately rewritten and skewed against a particular candidate shows many things. Try pettiness, insecurity, arrogance, and an attempt to control a constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of the Press.
When polls are conducted by partisan organizations, they inevitably show results beneficial to the favored candidate. If the poll results do not show the desired result, the surveys are buried, and not released to the public and the news media.
Reporters and editors cherish their independence, and strive to be neutral in their coverage. Granted, some who claim the mantle of journalist are not neutral in their coverage, but they are more properly described as columnists and commentators. They too are guaranteed freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
Note to candidates: Complaining about news coverage and antagonizing reporters is dangerous. And even more dangerous to a democracy is an attempt to silence critics by controlling the news media. It is a foolish path to take.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Northern Exposure
After a dozen years of conservative rule, the Canadian government has returned to a liberal base as Justin Trudeau became prime minister in recent parliamentary elections.
What does this portend for Canada's economic giant to the south? Will it mean a resurgence of liberal social policies common in Canada but stumbling in the U.S., tripped up by conservatives more interested in political power than in working for the benefit of society?
Or will it mean even stiffer opposition as foes of social welfare -- read, government aid in any fashion -- cling even closer to demagogues who chant ceaseless yet meaningless warnings that America is doomed to perdition, drowning in a wave of "takers" as a majority of hardworking "givers" stand by without fighting back?
Those who praise the virtues of compassion yet show none themselves risk being labeled hypocrite.
In any case, it's been noted that Canada often follows U.S. trends by one or two election cycles, which partially explains the tenure of conservatives there for the past dozen years, and the shift to the Liberal Party championed by Justin Trudeau after two presidential elections installing Barack Obama in the White House in Washington.
So now the question becomes whether this trend will continue. Canada has followed the American trend toward a government strongly favoring social welfare policies favored by liberals by installing Justin Trudeau -- son of the popular Pierre Trudeau -- as prime minister.
Next year, American voters will choose from among Democratic candidates who favor social welfare policies, and Republican candidates who are increasingly rabid about reducing or cutting out entirely such social welfare programs as Social Security old-age pensions, Medicare and Medicaid plans for health care, as well as changing tax rates to benefit even more the already wealthy.
The most likely nominees among Democrats are either Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and senator from New York, or Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who readily identifies himself as a socialist, stressing his devotion to social welfare programs. Among Republicans, the current leaders for the nomination are either Donald J. Trump, a real estate developer and reality television entertainer, or Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon. Neither has experience in political office, and both call for drastic reductions in government spending on social welfare programs, nearly to the point of austerity.
Austerity measures did not work in Canada during the administration of the Conservative Party there, nor has it worked in other countries. Rather than help a nation recover from a troubled economy, austerity only worsens conditions generally, and especially for those who need help.
Government assistance and economic stimulus programs have worked in the past, most notably during the Great Depression of the 1930s, as well as helping America recover during the past eight years from the Great Recession that opened the 21st Century.
Canadian voters may well have observed the success of such liberal programs, and that's why they ousted the Conservative regime and returned the Liberal Party to leadership.
Perhaps this is a sign that concern for the many, rather than favoritism for the few, will echo its populist harmonies to U.S. voters.
What does this portend for Canada's economic giant to the south? Will it mean a resurgence of liberal social policies common in Canada but stumbling in the U.S., tripped up by conservatives more interested in political power than in working for the benefit of society?
Or will it mean even stiffer opposition as foes of social welfare -- read, government aid in any fashion -- cling even closer to demagogues who chant ceaseless yet meaningless warnings that America is doomed to perdition, drowning in a wave of "takers" as a majority of hardworking "givers" stand by without fighting back?
Those who praise the virtues of compassion yet show none themselves risk being labeled hypocrite.
In any case, it's been noted that Canada often follows U.S. trends by one or two election cycles, which partially explains the tenure of conservatives there for the past dozen years, and the shift to the Liberal Party championed by Justin Trudeau after two presidential elections installing Barack Obama in the White House in Washington.
So now the question becomes whether this trend will continue. Canada has followed the American trend toward a government strongly favoring social welfare policies favored by liberals by installing Justin Trudeau -- son of the popular Pierre Trudeau -- as prime minister.
Next year, American voters will choose from among Democratic candidates who favor social welfare policies, and Republican candidates who are increasingly rabid about reducing or cutting out entirely such social welfare programs as Social Security old-age pensions, Medicare and Medicaid plans for health care, as well as changing tax rates to benefit even more the already wealthy.
The most likely nominees among Democrats are either Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and senator from New York, or Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who readily identifies himself as a socialist, stressing his devotion to social welfare programs. Among Republicans, the current leaders for the nomination are either Donald J. Trump, a real estate developer and reality television entertainer, or Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon. Neither has experience in political office, and both call for drastic reductions in government spending on social welfare programs, nearly to the point of austerity.
Austerity measures did not work in Canada during the administration of the Conservative Party there, nor has it worked in other countries. Rather than help a nation recover from a troubled economy, austerity only worsens conditions generally, and especially for those who need help.
Government assistance and economic stimulus programs have worked in the past, most notably during the Great Depression of the 1930s, as well as helping America recover during the past eight years from the Great Recession that opened the 21st Century.
Canadian voters may well have observed the success of such liberal programs, and that's why they ousted the Conservative regime and returned the Liberal Party to leadership.
Perhaps this is a sign that concern for the many, rather than favoritism for the few, will echo its populist harmonies to U.S. voters.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Poverty in Education
Minimum wage is a poverty wage.
Education is critical to a nation's success, goes the politically popular song, but when it comes to paying teachers enough to live on, the popular song goes off key.
Consider that in many school districts, starting salary for a teacher is often about $18,000 for a ten-month school year. That comes down to some $450 per week, or $12 per hour for a standard work week. And that does not include any additional hours spent preparing lessons or grading student work.
Granted, the federal minimum wage calls for a bit more than $7 an hour, and many cities mandate $10 an hour, even for unskilled retail clerks. Some now require a $15 an hour minimum.
Some employers defend the pay level by claiming that this is what the government says we must pay. The fallacy is that employers may not pay less, and in fact many pay more.
In education, however, the service provided is too important to justify that low level of pay. And anything less than $20,090 yearly leaves a family of three in poverty, according to government guidelines for the nation as a whole. In more prosperous states, moreover, the guideline would be much higher. Nonetheless, many of these same states pay beginning teachers less than the poverty guideline level.
Now consider housing costs relative to income. A guideline used by real estate agents is that one week's pay should equal one month's rent or mortgage payment. In Bucks County, PA, a one-bedroom apartment can easily run to $1,000 or more in monthly rent. But if a teacher starting a new job, with a college degree and teaching certificate, draws a salary of roughly $450 weekly -- before taxes -- that highly educated and skilled person cannot afford housing.
If that worker is at all rational, he or she will opt for a job in industry or in a business office, rather than in the preferred field of education.
All this despite the acknowledged need for high-quality education and highly skilled professional educators to provide it. Some may still go into the field because of their dedication. But there comes a time when the need for food, clothing and shelter outweighs devotion to a particular profession.
Education is critical to a nation's success, goes the politically popular song, but when it comes to paying teachers enough to live on, the popular song goes off key.
Consider that in many school districts, starting salary for a teacher is often about $18,000 for a ten-month school year. That comes down to some $450 per week, or $12 per hour for a standard work week. And that does not include any additional hours spent preparing lessons or grading student work.
Granted, the federal minimum wage calls for a bit more than $7 an hour, and many cities mandate $10 an hour, even for unskilled retail clerks. Some now require a $15 an hour minimum.
Some employers defend the pay level by claiming that this is what the government says we must pay. The fallacy is that employers may not pay less, and in fact many pay more.
In education, however, the service provided is too important to justify that low level of pay. And anything less than $20,090 yearly leaves a family of three in poverty, according to government guidelines for the nation as a whole. In more prosperous states, moreover, the guideline would be much higher. Nonetheless, many of these same states pay beginning teachers less than the poverty guideline level.
Now consider housing costs relative to income. A guideline used by real estate agents is that one week's pay should equal one month's rent or mortgage payment. In Bucks County, PA, a one-bedroom apartment can easily run to $1,000 or more in monthly rent. But if a teacher starting a new job, with a college degree and teaching certificate, draws a salary of roughly $450 weekly -- before taxes -- that highly educated and skilled person cannot afford housing.
If that worker is at all rational, he or she will opt for a job in industry or in a business office, rather than in the preferred field of education.
All this despite the acknowledged need for high-quality education and highly skilled professional educators to provide it. Some may still go into the field because of their dedication. But there comes a time when the need for food, clothing and shelter outweighs devotion to a particular profession.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Advocates and Adversaries
"Given the choice of government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would choose the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Chico Marx
Politicians and candidates assail news media for what they call negative coverage, insisting that all reporters "be nice." Translation: Be an advocate for me. To them, "fair" means favorable, and any report that's not favorable must, therefore, be unfair.
Good journalism, however, requires that reporters do just what their name implies: Report, both the favorable and the unfavorable. It requires that journalists expose lies, hypocrisy and corruption as well as reveal selective truth-telling and misleading statements, and provide documentable proof that the claims and statements are factually untrue. (That's a nice way of saying it's a lie.)
Too many politicians -- and people in business -- assume that if a reporter is not an advocate for them, the reporters is therefore an adversary, to be treated as such.
The reality is that good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough, penetrating questions because they need to be asked, and the questions are posed on behalf of the general public. And a journalist is first and always a member of the public.
Whenever a politician or business leader encounters unfavorable news coverage, he or she accuses the media of not being "truthful," and attacks.
The irony is that the attacks are also duly reported by that same media. Moral: Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Quite often, challenging and attacking a news story causes more people to see the story, either in the response attack version, or they research the original and read that as well.
Meanwhile, the reporter and the news outlet have very little to lose, since major media firms have squadrons of lawyers to defend them and every incident of thrust and parry by both sides gets even more exposure.
Here's an example: A spokesman for Amazon, Jay Carney, took to the Internet to post a blistering 1,300-word critique of a New York Times investigative story about the company's treatment of employees. Result: The NYT editor posted an equally long response defending the story as well as covering the incident with a news story in the print edition and its online pages. This led to many millions more readers of the original story in addition to the followup coverage.
Second example: A woman posted an article criticizing a major consulting firm, alleging its work was unsound and unethical. Similar exposes had already appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune years earlier. But the consulting firm, ChemRisk, did not challenge the two major newspapers. Instead, it filed a major lawsuit against the woman who posted the Internet article. The writer, Karen Savage, a private citizen, defied the consulting firms charges, continuing her postings and writing, "Bring it on, bro!" according to a New York Times account of the dispute.
So why didn't the aggrieved firm take on the Wall Street Journal with its complaints of defamation? One reason could be that the newspaper has squadrons of lawyers, supported by a corporate media behemoth to continue the legal battle for years.
The Internet writer, by her own admission, has no resources, and therefore has nothing to lose. She does, however, have access to the Internet, and her comments can go worldwide.
As for any allegation of libel or defamation, the best defense against libel is truth. If it's true, it's not libel. That was established in the 18th Century in the John Peter Zenger case. The dispute was over a story Zenger printed in 1734 about the New York colonial governor, noting that the governor had a mistress. The governor was unhappy, and even after a grand jury refused to indict Zenger, the governor had the journalist arrested and charged with libel.
The defense lawyer argued that the governor did, in fact, have a mistress, and it was common knowledge that he did. Therefore there was no libel. The jury acquitted Zenger.
Suing a private citizen, then, over Internet postings is not a good idea, especially if the postings are true. This only leads to more ink in print documenting the dispute and spreading news of the spat to more people more often, via the Internet and broadcast media.
Now, with the Constitution protecting the right of freedom of speech and of the press and the Internet enabling anyone with access to a computer to express thoughts and opinions worldwide, more people can spread more information more quickly and with greater impact than ever before.
When a major corporation sues a private citizen who has no assets, but the firm does not challenge a major media outlet that runs the same story and has a brigade of specialized lawyers to fight back, that shows the firm to be a bully picking on the little guy. Nobody likes that. And for journalists, that's a great story.
Just be sure it's true.
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Chico Marx
Politicians and candidates assail news media for what they call negative coverage, insisting that all reporters "be nice." Translation: Be an advocate for me. To them, "fair" means favorable, and any report that's not favorable must, therefore, be unfair.
Good journalism, however, requires that reporters do just what their name implies: Report, both the favorable and the unfavorable. It requires that journalists expose lies, hypocrisy and corruption as well as reveal selective truth-telling and misleading statements, and provide documentable proof that the claims and statements are factually untrue. (That's a nice way of saying it's a lie.)
Too many politicians -- and people in business -- assume that if a reporter is not an advocate for them, the reporters is therefore an adversary, to be treated as such.
The reality is that good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough, penetrating questions because they need to be asked, and the questions are posed on behalf of the general public. And a journalist is first and always a member of the public.
Whenever a politician or business leader encounters unfavorable news coverage, he or she accuses the media of not being "truthful," and attacks.
The irony is that the attacks are also duly reported by that same media. Moral: Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Quite often, challenging and attacking a news story causes more people to see the story, either in the response attack version, or they research the original and read that as well.
Meanwhile, the reporter and the news outlet have very little to lose, since major media firms have squadrons of lawyers to defend them and every incident of thrust and parry by both sides gets even more exposure.
Here's an example: A spokesman for Amazon, Jay Carney, took to the Internet to post a blistering 1,300-word critique of a New York Times investigative story about the company's treatment of employees. Result: The NYT editor posted an equally long response defending the story as well as covering the incident with a news story in the print edition and its online pages. This led to many millions more readers of the original story in addition to the followup coverage.
Second example: A woman posted an article criticizing a major consulting firm, alleging its work was unsound and unethical. Similar exposes had already appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune years earlier. But the consulting firm, ChemRisk, did not challenge the two major newspapers. Instead, it filed a major lawsuit against the woman who posted the Internet article. The writer, Karen Savage, a private citizen, defied the consulting firms charges, continuing her postings and writing, "Bring it on, bro!" according to a New York Times account of the dispute.
So why didn't the aggrieved firm take on the Wall Street Journal with its complaints of defamation? One reason could be that the newspaper has squadrons of lawyers, supported by a corporate media behemoth to continue the legal battle for years.
The Internet writer, by her own admission, has no resources, and therefore has nothing to lose. She does, however, have access to the Internet, and her comments can go worldwide.
As for any allegation of libel or defamation, the best defense against libel is truth. If it's true, it's not libel. That was established in the 18th Century in the John Peter Zenger case. The dispute was over a story Zenger printed in 1734 about the New York colonial governor, noting that the governor had a mistress. The governor was unhappy, and even after a grand jury refused to indict Zenger, the governor had the journalist arrested and charged with libel.
The defense lawyer argued that the governor did, in fact, have a mistress, and it was common knowledge that he did. Therefore there was no libel. The jury acquitted Zenger.
Suing a private citizen, then, over Internet postings is not a good idea, especially if the postings are true. This only leads to more ink in print documenting the dispute and spreading news of the spat to more people more often, via the Internet and broadcast media.
Now, with the Constitution protecting the right of freedom of speech and of the press and the Internet enabling anyone with access to a computer to express thoughts and opinions worldwide, more people can spread more information more quickly and with greater impact than ever before.
When a major corporation sues a private citizen who has no assets, but the firm does not challenge a major media outlet that runs the same story and has a brigade of specialized lawyers to fight back, that shows the firm to be a bully picking on the little guy. Nobody likes that. And for journalists, that's a great story.
Just be sure it's true.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Delusions
"It happened during his reign." -- Donald J. Trump
"Let my father rule." -- Tricia Nixon
Presidents do not reign. Neither do they rule.
Words convey messages. Sometimes these messages are intended, and sometimes they reveal what the speaker really thinks.
Republican candidate Donald J. Trump may not have intended to portray the White House as a royal palace, and he may not have consciously intended to equate the presidency with a monarchy.
Nonetheless, when he said during a televised interview that the 9/11 attack happened while George W. Bush was President, implying that Bush was somehow responsible for it, Trump did say that the disaster "happened during his reign."
And when President Richard Nixon was being severely criticized, daughter Tricia did say that the critics should leave him alone and let him "rule."
For Trump to use a verb like "reign" shows a deep-seated belief that as President, he would hold absolute power, and no one should dare to contradict or disagree with him in any way, about any thing, in any detail, ever.
Such an attitude may work in his corporate world, where as chief executive he holds all power. It does not, cannot, and should not operate in the political and governmental setting that is America. Trump has shown an intolerance for criticism before, most notably when it comes from journalists who ask penetrating questions, as well as from opposing candidates who criticize him. And instead of responding to the question or criticism, he resorts to abuse, insult and vilification. That's no way to run a campaign or a government. To believe otherwise is a delusion.
To accept the delusions of such a candidate endangers the values of a free society.
To blame the problems of a nation on members of a minority group is a strategy that has been used before. Inevitably, it led to disaster and tyranny.
It can't happen here, you say?
Oh, but it can, and very nearly did. Twice. And not the fictional account in the book by Sinclair Lewis.
It happened first in the 1930s, while Franklin D. Roosevelt was President, and a cabal of corporate titans plotted a military coup. See "The Plot To Seize The White House," by Jules Archer.
A similar action nearly happened when Richard M. Nixon was President and he wanted to activate the military to strengthen his hold on power. Fortunately, presidential advisor Henry Kissinger intervened to stop the move.
So despite the politicians' standard defense of "What I really meant was ..." it remains true that we know what was said, and words carry the true meanings of what the speaker believes.
"Let my father rule." -- Tricia Nixon
Presidents do not reign. Neither do they rule.
Words convey messages. Sometimes these messages are intended, and sometimes they reveal what the speaker really thinks.
Republican candidate Donald J. Trump may not have intended to portray the White House as a royal palace, and he may not have consciously intended to equate the presidency with a monarchy.
Nonetheless, when he said during a televised interview that the 9/11 attack happened while George W. Bush was President, implying that Bush was somehow responsible for it, Trump did say that the disaster "happened during his reign."
And when President Richard Nixon was being severely criticized, daughter Tricia did say that the critics should leave him alone and let him "rule."
For Trump to use a verb like "reign" shows a deep-seated belief that as President, he would hold absolute power, and no one should dare to contradict or disagree with him in any way, about any thing, in any detail, ever.
Such an attitude may work in his corporate world, where as chief executive he holds all power. It does not, cannot, and should not operate in the political and governmental setting that is America. Trump has shown an intolerance for criticism before, most notably when it comes from journalists who ask penetrating questions, as well as from opposing candidates who criticize him. And instead of responding to the question or criticism, he resorts to abuse, insult and vilification. That's no way to run a campaign or a government. To believe otherwise is a delusion.
To accept the delusions of such a candidate endangers the values of a free society.
To blame the problems of a nation on members of a minority group is a strategy that has been used before. Inevitably, it led to disaster and tyranny.
It can't happen here, you say?
Oh, but it can, and very nearly did. Twice. And not the fictional account in the book by Sinclair Lewis.
It happened first in the 1930s, while Franklin D. Roosevelt was President, and a cabal of corporate titans plotted a military coup. See "The Plot To Seize The White House," by Jules Archer.
A similar action nearly happened when Richard M. Nixon was President and he wanted to activate the military to strengthen his hold on power. Fortunately, presidential advisor Henry Kissinger intervened to stop the move.
So despite the politicians' standard defense of "What I really meant was ..." it remains true that we know what was said, and words carry the true meanings of what the speaker believes.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Days of Whine and Poseurs
The economic recovery is muddling, the nation's fiscal year has started with no final budget in place, and the U.S. Treasury is about to run out of cash.
Result: Government payments -- including retirement and health benefits, among other things -- will stop in mid-November, lack of a budget will shut down the government in mid-December, and a hesitant economy will stumble and fall, if not crash entirely.
Or, as a Republican President once said, "We're in deep doo-doo."
Consider these elements of a coming crisis:
-- Congress failed to approve a new federal budget as the new fiscal year began October 1, and instead passed a temporary measure to keep the government operating until mid-December.
-- The Congressional Budget Office said the Treasury's cash balance will be depleted by mid-November unless the debt ceiling is raised, thus enabling it to issue more securities, borrowing additional cash. Otherwise, there will be payment delays, "a default on the government's debt obligations, or both."
-- The Federal Reserve Board's survey of conditions nationwide noted "modest expansion" in economic activity from mid-August through early October, manufacturing "turned in a mixed but generally weaker performance" with some districts "noting adverse effects from the energy sector." However, the Fed noted in its Beige Book summary report, "manufacturing conditions were generally sluggish." In addition, wage growth was subdued, despite some reports of labor shortages. Prices were "contained," the Fed noted, which would mean little inflation. That's a sort of good news, knowing that prices are not rising faster than wages. That's no consolation, however, to those without a job.
And for those receiving pension benefits, there's a potential halt to those payments. The Treasury typically forwards money to trust funds that administer programs like the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund on June 30 and December 31. In the past year, the CBO noted, "payments due on each of those dates has amounted to about $70 billion." But because of a continuing impasse over the debt ceiling, those payments were not made last June, CBO said. And unless the ceiling is lifted again, no payments to these programs will be made in December.
Also in danger will be funding for other government-sponsored benefits programs, such as Social Security retirement benefits, military retiree payments as well as current salaries for the military and other government employees. If the Treasury runs out of cash and is unable to meet its financial obligations, the threat of a government shutdown becomes increasingly real, and could well happen just as the holiday season begins.
Can the crisis be stopped? Yes, but only if a recalcitrant Congress passes a permanent budget and raises the debt ceiling, enabling the government to pay its bills.
Otherwise, the government must close up shop (again), leaving millions out of work, security and transportation networks without safety supervision, health and pension benefits suspended, and a general economic decline, if not disaster.
Who can avert the crisis? Congress. Will it? One can only hope. Brinksmanship has failed in the past, as political radicals in Congress try to blame everything on the Administration for its own failure to act.
Happy Holidays.
Result: Government payments -- including retirement and health benefits, among other things -- will stop in mid-November, lack of a budget will shut down the government in mid-December, and a hesitant economy will stumble and fall, if not crash entirely.
Or, as a Republican President once said, "We're in deep doo-doo."
Consider these elements of a coming crisis:
-- Congress failed to approve a new federal budget as the new fiscal year began October 1, and instead passed a temporary measure to keep the government operating until mid-December.
-- The Congressional Budget Office said the Treasury's cash balance will be depleted by mid-November unless the debt ceiling is raised, thus enabling it to issue more securities, borrowing additional cash. Otherwise, there will be payment delays, "a default on the government's debt obligations, or both."
-- The Federal Reserve Board's survey of conditions nationwide noted "modest expansion" in economic activity from mid-August through early October, manufacturing "turned in a mixed but generally weaker performance" with some districts "noting adverse effects from the energy sector." However, the Fed noted in its Beige Book summary report, "manufacturing conditions were generally sluggish." In addition, wage growth was subdued, despite some reports of labor shortages. Prices were "contained," the Fed noted, which would mean little inflation. That's a sort of good news, knowing that prices are not rising faster than wages. That's no consolation, however, to those without a job.
And for those receiving pension benefits, there's a potential halt to those payments. The Treasury typically forwards money to trust funds that administer programs like the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund on June 30 and December 31. In the past year, the CBO noted, "payments due on each of those dates has amounted to about $70 billion." But because of a continuing impasse over the debt ceiling, those payments were not made last June, CBO said. And unless the ceiling is lifted again, no payments to these programs will be made in December.
Also in danger will be funding for other government-sponsored benefits programs, such as Social Security retirement benefits, military retiree payments as well as current salaries for the military and other government employees. If the Treasury runs out of cash and is unable to meet its financial obligations, the threat of a government shutdown becomes increasingly real, and could well happen just as the holiday season begins.
Can the crisis be stopped? Yes, but only if a recalcitrant Congress passes a permanent budget and raises the debt ceiling, enabling the government to pay its bills.
Otherwise, the government must close up shop (again), leaving millions out of work, security and transportation networks without safety supervision, health and pension benefits suspended, and a general economic decline, if not disaster.
Who can avert the crisis? Congress. Will it? One can only hope. Brinksmanship has failed in the past, as political radicals in Congress try to blame everything on the Administration for its own failure to act.
Happy Holidays.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Global Warning
"No man is an island." -- John Milton
"No country can go it alone" in a time of international economic challenges. -- Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director
The U.S. economy may be healthy now and may help support other nations in the Americas, but globally, growth is "modest and uneven," and these "uncertain conditions" could stunt U.S. economic growth. That's a summary forecast put out by both the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve Board this week.
The IMF Friday echoed a report by the Fed's Open Market Committee Thursday, noting that IMF member nations are facing "a rapidly changing and uncertain world."
The forecast on growth in the Western Hemisphere comes just one day after the U.S. Fed shelved its plan to end its stimulus program, citing "uncertain conditions" around the world that likely would impact the U.S.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the region is dealing with "a protracted slowdown" and the Canadian economy is losing momentum, the IMF said.
Moreover, China's expected slowdown as it moves to rebalance its growth is creating "spillovers," according to the IMF, and all these changes "pose challenges, particularly for emerging and low-income developing countries," whose prospects have dwindled most.
In a press briefing, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde emphasized that nations must "watch out for spillovers," as their central banks consider their policy decisions. The world economy is in transition, she added, and these changes must be managed carefully.
Moreover, "international cooperation is key," Lagarde said, whether the challenges are economic spillovers, the refugee crisis, international development or climate change, "no country can go it alone."
"No country can go it alone" in a time of international economic challenges. -- Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director
The U.S. economy may be healthy now and may help support other nations in the Americas, but globally, growth is "modest and uneven," and these "uncertain conditions" could stunt U.S. economic growth. That's a summary forecast put out by both the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve Board this week.
The IMF Friday echoed a report by the Fed's Open Market Committee Thursday, noting that IMF member nations are facing "a rapidly changing and uncertain world."
The forecast on growth in the Western Hemisphere comes just one day after the U.S. Fed shelved its plan to end its stimulus program, citing "uncertain conditions" around the world that likely would impact the U.S.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the region is dealing with "a protracted slowdown" and the Canadian economy is losing momentum, the IMF said.
Moreover, China's expected slowdown as it moves to rebalance its growth is creating "spillovers," according to the IMF, and all these changes "pose challenges, particularly for emerging and low-income developing countries," whose prospects have dwindled most.
In a press briefing, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde emphasized that nations must "watch out for spillovers," as their central banks consider their policy decisions. The world economy is in transition, she added, and these changes must be managed carefully.
Moreover, "international cooperation is key," Lagarde said, whether the challenges are economic spillovers, the refugee crisis, international development or climate change, "no country can go it alone."
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Waiting for Better News
Citing "greater uncertainty" in the global economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve shelved once again any plan to boost interest rates, with the "probabilities" for any action little changed through next January.
Moreover, the economic forecast prepared for the mid-September meeting was "a little weaker" than the staff's forecast in July, and economic downturns elsewhere, especially in China, were likely to affect U.S. growth potential. Nonetheless, members of the Fed's Open Market Committee agreed that risks to the U.S. are "nearly balanced," and the economy would "most likely continue to expand at a moderate pace."
Bottom line: The Fed will maintain its target interest range for federal funds at zero to 1/4 percent. How long? Even after conditions improve to their desired level, the Fed "may, for some time," keep interest rates low.
All things considered, don't look for a boost until spring.
Moreover, the economic forecast prepared for the mid-September meeting was "a little weaker" than the staff's forecast in July, and economic downturns elsewhere, especially in China, were likely to affect U.S. growth potential. Nonetheless, members of the Fed's Open Market Committee agreed that risks to the U.S. are "nearly balanced," and the economy would "most likely continue to expand at a moderate pace."
Bottom line: The Fed will maintain its target interest range for federal funds at zero to 1/4 percent. How long? Even after conditions improve to their desired level, the Fed "may, for some time," keep interest rates low.
All things considered, don't look for a boost until spring.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Big Brother is Here
Internet Privacy is an Oxymoron
Join our cognitive infrastructure, says IBM, and you will know every transaction, piece of data and interaction of computer users worldwide, the better to know your potential customers and target your advertising,
In a four-page, full-color newspaper advertising spread, the computer colossus welcomes business to what it calls the "Cognitive Era," where its technology "takes in data in all forms," from all sources, including Facebook and Twitter as well as its business partners, customers and "data available to all," stores it for you in what is conveniently known as "the cloud," and sets its team of 2,000 specialists to work analyzing what a client may want to know about potential customers and how to reach them.
These clients could easily include governments that want to monitor the activities of Internet users, on the excuse that they are looking for potential terrorists. In fact, the IBM ad brags that the company has 6,200 specialists "monitoring 133 countries and 20 billion events per day," ostensibly in the name of security.
But there is no privacy on the Internet, as Edward Snowden proved when he released the tons of data gathered by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, a backlash has begun, as the European Court of Justice ruled illegal the practice of gathering, storing and transferring web search histories, social media updates and other data between the U.S. and Europe. The court said leaks by Snowden already showed that American government agencies had full access to user data, interfering with citizens' rights to privacy.
The court said an agreement among international companies to transfer data files on user patterns between the U.S. and Europe was flawed because American officials could thereby peruse European individuals' files.
The case was brought by a citizen of Austria, who has been a Facebook user since 2008, according to the European Court of Justice. His Facebook postings were stored on computers in Ireland, and then transferred to computer servers in the U.S. But, the court noted, "the law and practice of the United States do not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by public authorities."
Join our cognitive infrastructure, says IBM, and you will know every transaction, piece of data and interaction of computer users worldwide, the better to know your potential customers and target your advertising,
In a four-page, full-color newspaper advertising spread, the computer colossus welcomes business to what it calls the "Cognitive Era," where its technology "takes in data in all forms," from all sources, including Facebook and Twitter as well as its business partners, customers and "data available to all," stores it for you in what is conveniently known as "the cloud," and sets its team of 2,000 specialists to work analyzing what a client may want to know about potential customers and how to reach them.
These clients could easily include governments that want to monitor the activities of Internet users, on the excuse that they are looking for potential terrorists. In fact, the IBM ad brags that the company has 6,200 specialists "monitoring 133 countries and 20 billion events per day," ostensibly in the name of security.
But there is no privacy on the Internet, as Edward Snowden proved when he released the tons of data gathered by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, a backlash has begun, as the European Court of Justice ruled illegal the practice of gathering, storing and transferring web search histories, social media updates and other data between the U.S. and Europe. The court said leaks by Snowden already showed that American government agencies had full access to user data, interfering with citizens' rights to privacy.
The court said an agreement among international companies to transfer data files on user patterns between the U.S. and Europe was flawed because American officials could thereby peruse European individuals' files.
The case was brought by a citizen of Austria, who has been a Facebook user since 2008, according to the European Court of Justice. His Facebook postings were stored on computers in Ireland, and then transferred to computer servers in the U.S. But, the court noted, "the law and practice of the United States do not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by public authorities."
Shooting Irony
Five Presidents have been shot while in office. Four were Republicans, shot at close range with handguns wielded by private citizens. Two assassination attempts were made against a sixth President, another Republican.
Yet Republicans lead the campaign for more guns in the hands of private citizens, without the restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment, which calls for a "well regulated militia."
Of the four Republican Presidents shot while in office, three -- Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and James A. Garfield -- died of their injuries. The fourth, Ronald Reagan, was seriously wounded. One Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated by a rifleman at long range. All five presidential shootings took place in public. Two assassination attempts were made against Republican President Gerald R. Ford, again with handguns, but the shooters missed and Ford was uninjured.
Of the shooters, all can be said to have mental health issues. GOP candidate Ben Carson passes off the mass killings in schools as being done by "the crazies," and no reason to restrict gun ownership. But that's all the more reason to impose prescreening of gun sales, and to treat those individuals who are mentally unstable.
Opponents of gun control cite the Constitutional guarantee of the "right of the people to bear arms" and Supreme Court decisions endorsing unlimited gun ownership. However, lobbyists ignore the Second Amendment's call for a "well regulated militia." Moreover, the Supreme Court has been known to make mistakes. Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, cited the Court's decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans, as well as American citizens of German and Italian descent, during World War II. And Justice John Paul Stephens has written that historically, the Court has treated the Second Amendment as requiring a "well regulated militia" functioning under state governments. In addition, Stephens called for a slight modification of the Second Amendment to reinforce that concept. The change would insert the words "while serving in a militia" in order to increase gun control in America.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates continue their chant for more guns in the hands of more people, even though Republican Presidents have been victims of gun violence.
Yet Republicans lead the campaign for more guns in the hands of private citizens, without the restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment, which calls for a "well regulated militia."
Of the four Republican Presidents shot while in office, three -- Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and James A. Garfield -- died of their injuries. The fourth, Ronald Reagan, was seriously wounded. One Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated by a rifleman at long range. All five presidential shootings took place in public. Two assassination attempts were made against Republican President Gerald R. Ford, again with handguns, but the shooters missed and Ford was uninjured.
Of the shooters, all can be said to have mental health issues. GOP candidate Ben Carson passes off the mass killings in schools as being done by "the crazies," and no reason to restrict gun ownership. But that's all the more reason to impose prescreening of gun sales, and to treat those individuals who are mentally unstable.
Opponents of gun control cite the Constitutional guarantee of the "right of the people to bear arms" and Supreme Court decisions endorsing unlimited gun ownership. However, lobbyists ignore the Second Amendment's call for a "well regulated militia." Moreover, the Supreme Court has been known to make mistakes. Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, cited the Court's decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans, as well as American citizens of German and Italian descent, during World War II. And Justice John Paul Stephens has written that historically, the Court has treated the Second Amendment as requiring a "well regulated militia" functioning under state governments. In addition, Stephens called for a slight modification of the Second Amendment to reinforce that concept. The change would insert the words "while serving in a militia" in order to increase gun control in America.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates continue their chant for more guns in the hands of more people, even though Republican Presidents have been victims of gun violence.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Stuff Happens
"A well regulated militia ... " -- U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment
"Stuff happens." So said GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, shrugging off the latest mass murder of students and faculty at a college in Oregon.
Others chimed in with variations on the theme that nothing can be done to prevent or even reduce gun violence in America. And the leading Republican candidate trumpeted the standard lobby line that more guns means more safety. If faculty and/or students had guns in the classroom, lives would have been saved as the target victims fought back against the attacker.
To make such a claim is preposterous. Calling for more guns in the hands of more people is ludicrous on its face, and can only result in more deaths. In a time of stress, who can tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? It's not like they wear special hats, as they did in old Hollywood movie Westerns. When bullets start flying, a person with a gun will be a target. There will be no Q & A session or classroom quiz beforehand.
During the theater shooting incident in Aurora, Colorado, in July, 2012, there was an off-duty police officer in the audience when the shooting started. But, as a well trained policeman, he knew better than to draw his weapon in a crowded theater.
Shooters responsible for the mass killings in America recently were not members of any militia, well regulated or otherwise. In fact, the shooter in last week's incident in Colorado was rejected by the military within weeks of beginning his service.
Firm believers in the gun lobby claim their weapons are needed for self protection, and are opposed to registration, warning that their guns would be needed to fight an enemy invasion, and a hostile government could easily locate and confiscate their registered weapons.
Do they really distrust their freely elected American government or the American military that much? Do they really believe the American military is incompetent?
Many, if not most, gun owners are responsible, conscientious citizens who use their pistols, rifles and shotguns for sport and for hunting. and support legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Weapons like the AK47 and similar military-style assault rifles are designed to be used for just one thing -- to kill people. They cannot be used for hunting. In fact, in some highly populated states, only shotgun and bow-and-arrow hunting is allowed. No rifles.
All the while, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, supporters led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), raise the chant that the Second Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to bear arms." But in doing so, they ignore the first four words of that Amendment, which cites the need for "A well regulated militia ..." The Constitution does not guarantee or endorse an individual's right to build a personal arsenal. In fact, a counter-argument is that the Second Amendment, far from banning gun control, actually demands it, through the formation of well regulated militias, organized and operated by local governments -- that is to say, "the people," not by individuals.
So to shrug off mass killing sprees by individuals, claiming they are done only by "the crazies," as candidate Ben Carson said, is to admit a failure to even consider any attempt to resolve a problem. And if the massacres are indeed largely done by those who are mentally unstable, that's even more reason to reach out and help them.
Meanwhile, massacres by individuals armed with high-capacity weapons and assault rifles become "routine," as President Barack Obama angrily put it, and nothing is done to resolve the problem.
To deny that a problem exists is moral blindness. To refuse to take a single step to deal with it is foolish. Every journey begins with a single step.
"Stuff happens." So said GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, shrugging off the latest mass murder of students and faculty at a college in Oregon.
Others chimed in with variations on the theme that nothing can be done to prevent or even reduce gun violence in America. And the leading Republican candidate trumpeted the standard lobby line that more guns means more safety. If faculty and/or students had guns in the classroom, lives would have been saved as the target victims fought back against the attacker.
To make such a claim is preposterous. Calling for more guns in the hands of more people is ludicrous on its face, and can only result in more deaths. In a time of stress, who can tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? It's not like they wear special hats, as they did in old Hollywood movie Westerns. When bullets start flying, a person with a gun will be a target. There will be no Q & A session or classroom quiz beforehand.
During the theater shooting incident in Aurora, Colorado, in July, 2012, there was an off-duty police officer in the audience when the shooting started. But, as a well trained policeman, he knew better than to draw his weapon in a crowded theater.
Shooters responsible for the mass killings in America recently were not members of any militia, well regulated or otherwise. In fact, the shooter in last week's incident in Colorado was rejected by the military within weeks of beginning his service.
Firm believers in the gun lobby claim their weapons are needed for self protection, and are opposed to registration, warning that their guns would be needed to fight an enemy invasion, and a hostile government could easily locate and confiscate their registered weapons.
Do they really distrust their freely elected American government or the American military that much? Do they really believe the American military is incompetent?
Many, if not most, gun owners are responsible, conscientious citizens who use their pistols, rifles and shotguns for sport and for hunting. and support legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Weapons like the AK47 and similar military-style assault rifles are designed to be used for just one thing -- to kill people. They cannot be used for hunting. In fact, in some highly populated states, only shotgun and bow-and-arrow hunting is allowed. No rifles.
All the while, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, supporters led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), raise the chant that the Second Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to bear arms." But in doing so, they ignore the first four words of that Amendment, which cites the need for "A well regulated militia ..." The Constitution does not guarantee or endorse an individual's right to build a personal arsenal. In fact, a counter-argument is that the Second Amendment, far from banning gun control, actually demands it, through the formation of well regulated militias, organized and operated by local governments -- that is to say, "the people," not by individuals.
So to shrug off mass killing sprees by individuals, claiming they are done only by "the crazies," as candidate Ben Carson said, is to admit a failure to even consider any attempt to resolve a problem. And if the massacres are indeed largely done by those who are mentally unstable, that's even more reason to reach out and help them.
Meanwhile, massacres by individuals armed with high-capacity weapons and assault rifles become "routine," as President Barack Obama angrily put it, and nothing is done to resolve the problem.
To deny that a problem exists is moral blindness. To refuse to take a single step to deal with it is foolish. Every journey begins with a single step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)